linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] iommu/sva: Invalidate KVA range on kernel TLB flush

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <6dn5n5cge7acmmfgb5zi7ctcbn5hiqyr2xhmgbdxohqydhgmtt@47nnr4tnzlnh>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2025 16:17:06 +0800
From: Yu Zhang <zhangyu1@...ux.microsoft.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>, Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>, 
	Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, 
	Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>, Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@...el.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, 
	Vasant Hegde <vasant.hegde@....com>, Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>, 
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>, 
	Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, 
	"Tested-by : Yi Lai" <yi1.lai@...el.com>, iommu@...ts.linux.dev, security@...nel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] iommu/sva: Invalidate KVA range on kernel TLB
 flush

On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 08:26:06AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 7/10/25 06:22, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> >> Why does this matter? We flush the CPU TLB in a bunch of different ways,
> >> _especially_ when it's being done for kernel mappings. For example,
> >> __flush_tlb_all() is a non-ranged kernel flush which has a completely
> >> parallel implementation with flush_tlb_kernel_range(). Call sites that
> >> use _it_ are unaffected by the patch here.
> >>
> >> Basically, if we're only worried about vmalloc/vfree freeing page
> >> tables, then this patch is OK. If the problem is bigger than that, then
> >> we need a more comprehensive patch.
> > I think we are worried about any place that frees page tables.
> 
> The two places that come to mind are the remove_memory() code and
> __change_page_attr().
> 
> The remove_memory() gunk is in arch/x86/mm/init_64.c. It has a few sites
> that do flush_tlb_all(). Now that I'm looking at it, there look to be
> some races between freeing page tables pages and flushing the TLB. But,
> basically, if you stick to the sites in there that do flush_tlb_all()
> after free_pagetable(), you should be good.
> 
> As for the __change_page_attr() code, I think the only spot you need to
> hit is cpa_collapse_large_pages() and maybe the one in
> __split_large_page() as well.
> 
> This is all disturbingly ad-hoc, though. The remove_memory() code needs
> fixing and I'll probably go try to bring some order to the chaos in the
> process of fixing it up. But that's a separate problem than this IOMMU fun.
> 

Could we consider to split the flush_tlb_kernel_range() into 2 different
versions:
- the one which only flushes the CPU TLB
- the one which flushes the CPU paging structure cache and then notifies
  IOMMU to do the same(e.g., in pud_free_pmd_page()/pmd_free_pte_page())?


B.R.
Yu